IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT JACKSON

Assigned On Briefs July 12, 2011

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. ANTHONY CLINTON

Appeal from the Criminal Court of Shelby County 

No. 09-02125 Chris Craft, Judge

No. W2010-02157-CCA-R3-CD - Filed September 12, 2011 

The Defendant, Anthony Clinton, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of

robbery, a Class C felony. See T.C.A. § 39-13-401 (2010). He was sentenced as a career

offender to 15 years’ confinement. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the evidence was

insufficient to support his conviction. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Criminal Court Affirmed

JOSEPH M. TIPTON, P.J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which THOMAS T. WOODALL

and NORMA MCGEE OGLE, JJ., joined.

Stephen Bush, District Public Defender; Robert Trent Hall, Assistant Public Defender at trial;

and Phyllis Aluko, Assistant District Public Defender on appeal, for the appellant, Anthony

Clinton.

Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney General and Reporter; David H. Findley, Senior Counsel;

Amy P. Weirich, District Attorney General; and Dean DeCandia, Assistant District Attorney

General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

OPINION

This case relates to a robbery of an Exxon convenience store on East Shelby Drive in

Memphis, Tennessee. Sophia Chambers testified that she worked at the store on January 2,

2009. She said she was trained in various aspects of being a sales associate including being

trained to pay attention to a customer’s appearance and in procedures to follow during a

robbery.

Ms. Chambers testified that because her shift was to end soon, she placed the cash

register money into the store safe at approximately 8:50 p.m., leaving only sixty dollars in
the register. She said no customers were in the store. She stated that after she placed the

money in the safe, a young boy and a teenage girl entered the store. She said the Defendant

entered the store after them but he did not appear to be with the younger customers.

Ms. Chambers testified that the Defendant “caught” her eye as he walked through the

store. She said the Defendant watched the young boy and girl and walked back and forth in

front of one of the drink coolers. She said that the young customers approached the counter

to pay for the items they selected and that the Defendant walked behind them as though he

was ready to pay for an item. She said that the Defendant hovered over the young customers

as he moved closer to the counter and that his actions scared her.

Ms. Chambers testified that after the teenage girl paid for the items and the cash

register was open, the Defendant shoved the young boy, jumped onto the counter, and

reached into the cash register. She stated that the Defendant pushed her and that she

slammed the cash register drawer shut on his arm many times. She stated the Defendant

fought her with the elbow of the arm caught in the cash register and with his other arm to

make her back away. She said that she continued to push the cash register drawer closed

while the Defendant’s arm was still caught in the drawer but that the Defendant was able to

remove his arm and take money from the drawer before she could close the cash register.

Just before the Defendant got the money, he had moved his arm enough to cause Ms.

Chambers to mash two of her fingers as she tried to close the cash register.

Ms. Chambers testified that she was afraid of the Defendant and thought he wanted

to attack her but that she realized the Defendant “just wanted the money.” She said she did

not attempt to retrieve the money from the Defendant because she was afraid. She stated that

after the Defendant “jumped back over the counter”and ran to the door to leave, he gave her

an intimidating look that scared her. Ms. Chambers said that she did not know what the

Defendant was going to do and that she just stood behind the cash register and watched the

Defendant. Ms. Chambers stated that after the Defendant left the store, she went to the door

to look outside and saw the Defendant sitting in a “silver-grayish” Oldsmobile with

Tennessee tag number 228SWW. Ms. Chambers said the Defendant drove northbound on

Kirby toward Raines.

Ms. Chambers testified that after the Defendant drove away, she locked the doors to

the store and asked if the boy and girl would stay to speak with the police. She went back

to the cash register and determined that a twenty-dollar bill was missing from the register.

She spoke with a 9-1-1 dispatcher and provided a description of the man and his car, the time

he entered the store, and the direction in which he drove. She said the police arrived

approximately ten minutes after she was robbed with a suspect in the back seat of the police

-2-
cruiser. She said the police asked her to identify the man, whom she recognized as the man

who robbed her.

Ms. Chambers testified that after the robbery, she remained scared, did not return to

work for one week, and stayed home most of that week. She said she was too frightened to

go back to any Exxon convenience store during that time. Ms. Chambers said she was scared

because she did not know if someone would target her or if the Defendant remained in jail.

She stated that she used Exxon’s mental health counseling service for two days after the

robbery and that her hand was sore for three days.

On cross-examination, Ms. Chambers testified that there were eight or more

surveillance cameras inside the store. She said approximately fifteen police officers were at

the store after the robbery and recalled speaking with Officers Robinson and Valentine. She

said that when she gave her statement to the police the night of the robbery, the police were

aware of the eight surveillance cameras. She said she did not know if the police gathered the

video recordings from the surveillance cameras because after the police arrived, she

identified the Defendant in the backseat of the police cruiser, the Defendant was placed in

custody, and she drove with her friend, Latoya Boatwright, to the police station to make her

statement.

Ms. Chambers testified that while she and the Defendant struggled over the cash

register, the Defendant jumped onto the counter but did not make it behind the counter. She

said that when she said “over the counter” in her formal police statement, she meant that the

Defendant had to jump over the shelves in front of the counter.

Bryana Polk testified that on January 2, 2009, she was eighteen years old and that her

brother was eight years old. Ms. Polk said that her mother drove them to the Exxon

convenience store the night of the robbery but that her mother stayed inside the car while she

and her brother went inside. She said the Defendant was the only other customer in the store

while they were there. Ms. Polk stated that the Defendant caught her attention because he

was a “big guy and tall.” She said she noticed that the Defendant looked at her and that he

paced around without picking up anything. Ms. Polk said that when she and her brother went

to the counter to pay for their items, the Defendant came behind her and made her feel

uncomfortable as he moved closer. She stated that she handed the cashier the money and that

as the cash register opened, the Defendant pushed her brother, “jumped on the cash register,”

and tried to get the money. She stated that the cashier slammed the cash register door on the

Defendant’s hand and attempted to push the register door closed but was unable to close it

because the Defendant pushed her. Ms. Polk did not see the Defendant get any money before

he left the store.

-3-
On cross-examination, Ms. Polk testified that the police responded quickly and that

she gave one of the officers her name, telephone number, address, and her brother’s name

but that she was never asked to give a signed, written statement. She stated that to her

knowledge, neither her brother nor her mother was asked to give a signed, written statement.

Ms. Polk said that she saw surveillance cameras inside the store but that she did not see any

of the surveillance footage. She said the police did not dust the scene for fingerprints in her

presence. Ms. Polk confirmed that after the Defendant jumped onto the counter, he remained

on the counter during the robbery.

Memphis Police Officer Herman Robinson testified that on January 2, 2009, he

received a radio communication to be on the lookout for a late model silver, four-door

Oldsmobile Intrigue driven by a black male. Officer Robinson said he saw a car matching

the description approximately six minutes later. Officer Robinson stated that he activated

his blue lights and honked his horn and siren. The car stopped and Officer Robinson

identified the Defendant as the driver. Officer Robinson said he found a twenty-dollar bill

in the Defendant’s pants pocket. The twenty-dollar bill was received as an exhibit.

Officer Robinson testified that he did not attempt to question the Defendant but that

the Defendant volunteered a statement. Officer Robinson stated that the Defendant said

Robinson “was a real police” and that Officer Robinson was “good” and enjoyed his job. He

stated that the Defendant did not make any gestures but appeared to be “spaced out or zoned”

out. Officer Robinson said he needed to investigate the robbery and took the Defendant to

the store. He spoke with the officers who took the report at the store. Officer Robinson said

Ms. Chambers identified the Defendant without hesitation as the person who robbed her.

Officer Robinson said Ms. Chambers stated that the Defendant was able to get the money by

shoving her backwards and that she injured her hand during the robbery.

On cross-examination, Officer Robinson testified that other officers were present

when he arrived at the scene. He said that he did not collect any other evidence related to

this case and that he never entered the store.

The Defendant contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction

because it did not establish that he knowingly took items from the person of Sophia

Chambers by use of violence or by putting her in fear. The State argues that the evidence

was sufficient to support the Defendant’s conviction. We agree with the State.

Our standard of review when the sufficiency of the evidence is questioned on appeal

is “whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any

rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable

doubt.” Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979); State v. Williams, 657 S.W.2d 405,

-4-
410 (Tenn. 1983). This means that we may not reweigh the evidence but must presume that

the trier of fact has resolved all conflicts in the testimony and drawn all reasonable inferences

from the evidence in favor of the State. See State v. Sheffield, 676 S.W.2d 542, 547 (Tenn.

1984); State v. Cabbage, 571 S.W.2d 832, 835 (Tenn. 1978). Any questions about the

“credibility of the witnesses, the weight to be given to their testimony, and the reconciliation

of conflicts in the proof are matters entrusted to the jury as the trier of fact.” State v. Dotson,

254 S.W.3d 378, 395 (Tenn. 2008) (citing State v. Vasques, 221 S.W.3d 514, 521 (Tenn.

2007)); see State v. Bland, 958 S.W.2d 651, 659 (Tenn. 1997).

Robbery is defined as “the intentional or knowing theft of property from the person

of another by violence or putting the person in fear.” T.C.A. § 39-13-401. “[A] person acts

intentionally with respect to the nature of the conduct or to a result of the conduct when it is

the person’s conscious objective or desire to engage in the conduct or cause the result.”

T.C.A. § 39-11-106(a)(18) (2010). “[A] person acts knowingly with respect to the conduct

or to circumstances surrounding the conduct when the person is aware of the nature of the

conduct or that the circumstances exist. A person acts knowingly with respect to a result of

the person’s conduct when the person is aware that the conduct is reasonably certain to cause

the result.” Id. § -106(a)(20). Our supreme court has held that “the plain meaning of the

element of violence as used in the offense of robbery . . . is evidence of physical force

unlawfully exercised so as to damage, injure or abuse.” State v. Fritz, 19 S.W.3d 213, 217

(Tenn. 2000). Fear as an element of robbery “is fear of present personal peril from violence

offered or impending” and “of bodily danger or impending peril to the person.” State v.

Bowles, 52 S.W.3d 68, 80 (Tenn. 2001) (quoting Britt v. State 26 Tenn. (7 Hum.) 45 (1846)).

It is the existence of violence or fear that elevates an offense from theft to robbery. Bowles,

52 S.W.3d at 80; see James v. State, 385 S.W.2d 86, 88 (Tenn. 1964).

Taken in the light most favorable to the State, the record reflects that Ms. Chambers

opened the cash register and that the Defendant jumped onto the counter and stuck his arm

into the cash register. The Defendant and Ms. Chambers struggled over the cash register, and

the Defendant pushed Ms. Chambers. During the struggle, Ms. Chambers slammed her own

hand into the cash register. Ms. Chambers stated she was afraid of the Defendant and

thought that he would attack her. She did not attempt to retrieve the money taken by the

Defendant because she was afraid.

The record reflects that the Defendant placed another in fear during an intentional and

knowing theft of property. See Fritz, 19 S.W.3d at 217 (Tenn. 2000); see Bowles, 52 S.W.3d

at 80. The Defendant argues that Ms. Chamber’s actions of struggling with the Defendant

undermine her assertions that she was afraid, but a person can engage in a struggle and still

be placed in fear. Ms. Chambers testified that she was in fear and afraid of the Defendant.

She did not attempt to retrieve the money taken by the Defendant because she was afraid.

-5-
Any questions about the weight to be given to a witness’s testimony and “the reconciliation

of conflicts in the proof are matters entrusted to the jury as the trier of fact.” Dotson, 254

S.W.3d at 395 (Tenn. 2008) (citing State v. Vasques, 221 S.W.3d 514, 521 (Tenn. 2007)).

A rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms. Chambers was

placed in fear.

The record also reflects that the Defendant used violence during an intentional or

knowing theft of property from the person of another. See Fritz, 19 S.W.3d at 217. In Fritz,

as a convenience store clerk opened the cash register for a transaction with a customer, the

defendant “shoved” the clerk “in an aggressive manner,” which caused the clerk to fall

backward into a store display. Id. at 216. The clerk testified that he “was stunned and afraid

but not hurt.” Id. The defendant reached into the cash register, took approximately forty

dollars and left the store. Id. Our supreme court held that the evidence established “the

[robbery] was committed with violence, that is, physical force unlawfully exercised . . . as

to injure, damage, or abuse.” Id. at 217. The facts are similar in this case. As the cash

register opened, the Defendant jumped onto the counter and stuck his hand into the register.

The Defendant and Ms. Chambers struggled over the cash register and the Defendant shoved

Ms. Chambers. Ms. Chambers shut the cash register door on the Defendant’s hand and the

Defendant continued to push Ms. Chambers. A rational trier of fact could have found

beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant committed the offense with violence.

The Defendant also contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his

conviction because the eye witnessidentifications of the Defendant were prejudicially tainted

and overly suggestive in that the police used a single-suspect-show-up identification process

at the crime scene. The State argues the identifications of the Defendant were sufficient to

support the Defendant’s conviction. We agree with the State.

First, we note the Defendant did not seek to suppress the identifications at the trial.

In any event, the record reflects that Ms. Chambers identified the Defendant during the trial

as the man who entered the convenience store, jumped on the counter, struggled with her to

take money from the cash register, took twenty dollars, and left the store. Ms. Polk identified

the Defendant as the person that entered the store, jumped on the counter, struggled with the

cashier to obtain money from the register, and left the store. The fact that Ms. Polk did not

actually observe the Defendant in the act of taking money from the register is not relevant

to her identification of him as the perpetrator. A rational trier of fact could have found that

the witnesses made proper identifications of the Defendant, and this court will not disturb the

jury’s conclusion that the witnesses made proper identifications of the Defendant. We

conclude that a rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt the elements

of robbery and that the witnesses made proper identifications of the Defendant. We hold that

the evidence is sufficient to support the Defendant’s conviction.

-6-
In consideration of the foregoing and the record as a whole, the judgment of the trial

court is affirmed.

____________________________________

JOSEPH M. TIPTON, PRESIDING JUDGE

-7-